Nope. The summary said "bad credit," which Mantei said could mean Zimmerman lied on his application, or that he had bad credit. Nelson is the one who suggested "bad credit" be redacted entirely, as irrelevant. O'Mara wanted it in, not that he wanted the public to know that Zimmerman had bad credit, but better that than to speculate he was rejected for bad moral character or something. Nelson suggested the word "bad" be redacted, leaving just the word "credit" in there, and she said it would be up to the jury to infer whatever meaning they wanted, to that.

She seems to be a fan of conviction by speculation and inference, using irrelevant evidence. In this case, at least.

So every time they bleat about case law and precedent, they're blowing smoke?

And btw, you appear more cynical than I.

Congratulations.

Not each time, but sometimes. I have a few pet peeves there. Chronic misrepresentation of Presser, Miller and even Marbury v. Madison. The law is 95% outcome driven. There are enough precedents, and cherry picking statements out of context is a powerful tool, that any decision can be made to look like it is rules based.

Instructor says Zimmerman was probably one of the better students in the class.

Mantei asks what is covered as far as self-defense under Florida law. Instructor says the course included SYG and castle doctrine. Did you discuss self defense and stand your ground in the context of crimes such as murder? Yes. How much time was spent in the course on this? It's an affirmative defense, it was constantly interated, students wanted to know about it, it was practical, the class was engaged in the discussions, he recalls talking about it many times.

Witness also worked as a public defender. Were you a PD at the same time you taught Zimmerman? Yes. First job as a lawyer was public defender. Witness likes teaching, would like to be a law professor. Educating others helped reinforce the things he needed to know in his job. Law on the books vs. law in action. Any change in a fact (in a case) can change the outcome (how true!). All facts have significance, but there are certain things that through case law have been given more weight. "Reasonable person standard" comes up. West says "reasonable belief" is squarely part of self defense. Gets agreement.

Witness now does only prosecution at this time. He had done admin law in a federal context.

Is this your career? Witness would rather not comment on that right now.

Witness did not write the course book. It was suggested, previous professor used it. It was not Florida law. Book may have referenced majority/minority of states (as to each legal proposition or standard) but did not single out Florida. Some class discussion was on Florida law, and stand your ground.

I'm going to set aside commenting until/unless the witness says something that strikes me as remarkable in the context of the Zimmerman case. The witness seems to be a straight-up good person.

West is keying on the notion of reasonable attaches to the fear of injury, and not actual injury. The witness taught class with example from YouTube, stopped frame by frame, and says that the situation can change quickly; that it is possible to have reasonable imminent fear, with no injuries. Injuries tend to corroborate a person's assertion that their fear was reasonable.

West gets into imperfect self defense. The witness says using too much force.

Mantei had been making objections - West clarifies that all of his questions pertain to what was taught in the class, not to what the witness knows in general. That stops the objections for now.

West describes the Zimmerman / Martin confrontation. Person being held, beating goes on for 10, 20, 30 seconds, the victim wouldn't know when the attack would stop. Objection, sustained. Too much like giving an opinion on this case, as to ultimate conclusion.

West goes on to a fight where tables are turned. Use of disproportionate force is imperfect self defense. West says what about the person who started it (used small force, met with disproportionate force)? Can they return force? Yes.

Back to Mantei. This worked almost as good as the expert (Root?) that is the subject of the recent state motion in limine.

Mantei attempts to raise "provoke." West objects, not raised on direct or on cross. Also (my two cents) provocation in a self defense inquiry is limited to threat or use of force.